Tim Link wrote: > I am finally going to upgrade my server running Fedora Core > 1 (I know, I'm behind the times) and was thinking about > using FC5. But, as I read the posts on this list, it appears > that Debian has found it's way into the hearts of many as > far as it being a preferred distro for servers. Why is this > the case? I truly am not into distro wars but was just > wondering if Debian has a better track record than the > others, longer up-times, etc. My preference is definitely Debian for 99.9% uptime servers. It just seems the most stable. The updates generally seem primarily security related and apt-get is about as easy as it gets. The only time I've EVER had to reboot my Debian server is for a kernel rebuild or when I last setup software RAID. It's a rock. I'm using Slackware more and more because I also find not dealing with .rpms or even .debs is nice too. There is a slapt-get tool that gives Slackware updates a debian feel though. I tend to manage a subset of the system myself, I always do my own kernel builds, mysql/postgresql, apache, php, etc. from source so Slackware works well for me. I cut my teeth on SuSE and have a soft spot for it - I now refuse to use any RPM-based distro if given another option. But if I had to SuSE would be my reluctant choice. I just don't care for Redhat/Fedora at all. That's just me - I'm not super-guru-sysadmin so don't take it too seriously. .) > If the concensus is that it just really doesn't matter at > all which distro to use on a server, that will be enough for > me. Thanks. Mostly a matter of taste, anyone can be a shitty admin in a distro they don't understand so I guess I'd recommend staying with what you are familiar with. If that Fedora, then you'd probably be the most effective admin on that distro until you've had some exposure to something else in a non-production env. My $0.02... Josh